Anyone following the Nevada governor’s race might have heard Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) brag that he has cut or streamlined 900 regulations.
An ad with 16 million views said it was a reason for Nevada’s positive job growth. The Nevada Republican Party said axing these regulations helped create jobs and grow businesses. And Lombardo himself keeps mentioning it as part of his administration’s “pro-growth agenda.”
But what regulations were actually cut? And did they actually help businesses?
A Nevada Independent analysis of the regulation changes during Lombardo’s tenure in office found that some of them had a direct nexus to employment, such as easing certain job licensing rules, but most of the broader regulatory changes had no economic effect on businesses or the public, according to state agencies’ own projections.
In addition, hundreds of the changes did not appear to have a direct connection to businesses, as they addressed areas such as revising definitions or agencies’ internal processes. The governor’s office says that any regulatory cleanup will benefit the public.
The changes stem from executive orders Lombardo signed when he entered office, one of which he renewed last month. The orders required state agencies to recommend at least 10 regulations for removal and mandated that occupational licensing boards find ways to make it easier for Nevadans to find work.
Lombardo has highlighted job numbers as he runs for re-election against Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford, touting Nevada’s lowest unemployment rate since the pandemic — though it still is among the highest in the country — and leading the nation in job growth for 11 straight months as of June.
But when it comes to regulations, there often isn’t a strong connection between cutting them and job growth, three regulation researchers said in interviews with The Indy. Although a more business-friendly regulatory environment can attract companies into the state, simply cutting regulations does not necessarily translate into jobs.
“The employment effects — at least in the data — are relatively minor,” said Chris Carrigan, a researcher at George Washington University who helped edit a volume called “Does regulation kill jobs?” He added that much of the research has been at the federal level.
Economists also recently told The Indy there are lots of other factors that could spur growth, including a national recovery from the pandemic and data center buildout.
There has also been an increase in politicians campaigning around regulating cutting, as seen through President Donald Trump’s efforts to deregulate business and industry at the federal level, said Stuart Shapiro, a professor at Rutgers University.
But nuance is often lost during that discourse, Shapiro said. For example, Lombardo has at times said he has “cut” 900 regulations, but that is not accurate because hundreds of the changes were adjusting existing regulations.
“It is a very easy issue to demagogue,” Shapiro said. “That doesn’t mean we can’t improve things by getting rid of some regulations and maybe issuing some better ones in their place.”
…
What about businesses and the public?
Under state law, agencies seeking regulation changes must submit documents explaining whether their proposal would have an economic impact on small businesses, the public and the overall business community.
The governor’s office provided The Indy with about 120 proposals that it said arose from the executive order. These proposals collectively contained hundreds of regulation cuts and changes.
But at least 60 percent of these proposals would have had no economic effect on the public or businesses, according to state agencies’ own documents. This was because the regulations did not have a nexus to the business community, and that the changes were mostly to address internal processes.
Researchers said this aligned with their findings that simply removing or changing a regulation does not necessarily translate into economic or job benefits.
“It could be meaningful. It could not be meaningful,” Shapiro said.
The governor’s office has said that streamlining and clarifying regulations will make life easier for people navigating the regulatory system — something that researchers agreed with.